Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1036

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 1006 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TESSERA, INC., 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 05-4063 CW Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 1006) ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.; SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC.; SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.), INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.; SILICONWARE USA, INC.; STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC (BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC, LTD., Defendants. ________________________________/ Defendants and Counterclaimants Siliconware Precision 17 Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware USA, Inc. (collectively, 18 SPIL) move to seal Exhibit A to their joint stipulation with 19 Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. to dismiss Tessera’s tenth cause of action 20 against SPIL. Exhibit A contains royalty reports with financial 21 information about payments made by SPIL pursuant to the TCC 22 License Agreement. 23 The parties seek to seal court records that are closely 24 related to the merits of its case. To establish that the 25 documents are sealable, the party who has designated them as 26 confidential “must overcome a strong presumption of access by 27 showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 28 1 findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the 2 public policies favoring disclosure.’” 3 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 4 id. at 678 (explaining that a less stringent “good cause” standard 5 is applied to sealed discovery documents attached to 6 non-dispositive motions). 7 showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by 8 stating in general terms that the material is considered to be 9 confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Cf. This cannot be established simply by United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document 11 under seal. 12 Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). SPIL has submitted a declaration attesting that “public 13 disclosure of the royalty payments made under the TCC License 14 Agreement would harm SPIL by providing its competitors with 15 proprietary information regarding its services, including, the 16 amount of royalties paid to Tessera.” 17 Heafey Decl. ¶ 5. Having reviewed Exhibit A, the Court concludes that SPIL has 18 established that it is sealable. 19 file under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 1006). 20 of the date of this Order, SPIL shall electronically file under 21 seal Exhibit A to the stipulation of dismissal. 22 Accordingly, SPIL’s motion to Within three days IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: 8/10/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?